Isn't that just BubbleSort?
And, if so: they're writing Arxiv papers on BubbleSort now?
And, if so: they're writing Arxiv papers on BubbleSort now?
The interesting part is that it often comes up when the one writing the algorithm doesn't know what he is doing, and yet, it works. It may look like a BubbleSort because it is a common wrong implementation of BubbleSort.
EDIT: insertion, not selection
(they also document a variant in 3.1 with similar indices tweaking which they describe as similar to an exchange sort)
I actually think it's pretty cool, it happens occasionally that I just need a quick and dirty sort and this is easier to get right.
There is a 50% chance of apply the permutation in the wrong direction, and other possible tricky details.
Since the worst case was N=20, I used bubble sort that is as quick and dirty, but it's also obvious and well known.
Sometimes I'm writing my own language, trying to figure something else out and don't feel like being sidetracked.
Sometimes predictable performance is more important than optimal.
Let's just say there are plenty of reasons why someone might want to do that.
Exchange sort is more intuitive and almost as simple, and if you don't mind something a little less intuitive but still very simple, just do insertion, it is often considered the best of the simple (N^2) sorting algorithms.
For me, the most intuitive and the less likely I would get wrong would be selection. It is actually the one I came up with naturally before I even knew about sorting algorithms, it is a couple of lines longer than the others though, and often considered worse than insertion.
A[i] < A[j]